User talk:Pentawing/archive4

Ann Arbor, Michigan FAR

Ann Arbor, Michigan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

UM Medical Campus

I see that you deleted an entire section recently added to the University of Michigan article providing some detail for the Medical campus. I believe some explanation would be in order on the discussion page as to why you felt it necessary to delete the entire section instead of shortening it or cleaning up some of the wording. I'm interested in hearing why at least some mention of the University of Michigan Medical Campus is inappropriate for the University of Michigan article. This edit has also left some hanging references to there being 4 campuses. I get that there's an entire article devoted to the Health System, but I don't see the harm in making some smaller reference to the campus. I look forward to some comments on the Talk:University of Michigan page. - Terryfoster 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the person who added the passages about the medical campus yesterday, and first let me offer many apologies if I've made newbie mistakes re: POV, etc. I'm a science writer for the University of Michigan Health System and this is my first foray into Wikipedia. (I took it upon myself to check out the Health System's entry and the main U-M entry, and to take a stab at edits and additions to both, but mainly the Health System entry.) The 4 campus thing on the University of Michigan article was my doing. While the medical campus is sometimes considered part of the central campus, I'd like to argue for its inclusion as a separate, but adjacent campus in the University of Michigan article because of perceptions on campus, the medical center's recent growth and the separate strategic planning that has been done specifically for the medical campus. Also, you can find mentions of it as a distinct campus on the U-M parking and transportation site (i.e. [1] ) Given that the medical center makes up a large chunk of the University's physical space, research budget, employee base, etc. I would definitely like to work with you to reach consensus on how to include it in the main U-M article. I'm also open to changes to the U-M Health System entry along Wikipedia guidelines but I'd like to work with you closely on those as I represent that organization offically. Again, I'm new to this but I think we can come to agreement! - kegavin 21 Feb. 2007 6 p.m. ET

Greetings. I'm kegavin's counterpart at the U-M Medical School. I'd like to create a stand-alone wikipedia entry for the U-M Medical School that links to what exists now for the U-M and the U-M Health System. I'm about to create my account. After that, what are my next steps? - reillymb

Ann Arbor

Hi; sorry I stopped in the middle of the article :) I'll go ahead and give it another look later today. You're doing a great job on it though. — Deckiller 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll give Sandy 24 hrs to look again. Marskell 07:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Boston

Your edits to Boston were unmarked, a condition which in light of WP:Vandalism suggests an act of vandalism. I believe that is not the case and that you were editing something to conform with a personal conviction of yours. The exact changes in questions were (1) the listing of New Hampshire (the Nashua area is always considered part of metro Boston) and Connecticut and Rhode Island by some considerations, which is accurate as the CSA for Boston was only recently expanded to include some of those areas; and (2) my editing for language of the section related to popular and punk rock bands. In the latter case, your editing suggests you would like punk rock music to be considered unrefined and of greater importance than popular music. Please let me know what your suggestions are and we will work to make the appropriate changes together. 67.101.243.74 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you saw that suggests vandalism (though I am hoping that it isn't due to my removal of your additions. I have already done this to other sections in the article several times, such as sports, but so far you are the first that I am aware of who is calling this vandalism). But from the talk page of the article, there is a possibility of the article's being put up for FAR, which is something I am trying to avoid. As for your two points:

1 - The wording suggests commentary and a point of view (or POV), especially with the words "by some consideration" (whose consideration?). Even if you are telling the truth (though the last time I checked the Boston CSA covers New Hampshire as well as Rhode Island and Connecticut), unless you can cite the "consideration" part, I tend to see that passage as POV which is unacceptable and must be removed.

2 - The list of punk bands that are currently based in Boston unfortunately invites others to add their own favorite groups (for an example of this, see performing arts under Detroit, Michigan. When the article first became featured, the list was a lot shorter). There is already an article about culture in Boston, and it is preferable to place the detail there while leaving the passage within the main Boston article as a summary of culture in Boston. However, I did remove the passage mentioning the "refined" aspects of Boston's culture.

The Boston article is currently a featured article, and someone has recently nominated it for the front page. However, as I noted before, there are concerns over the article as it regards to its featured status, and the work that I am doing is to ensure that the article will not find itself being nominated for featured article removal. Pentawing^Talk 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

More response under Detroit talk. Detroit appears to be the most well balanced featured city article, suggest a better one for discussion. The Detroit article has many thoughtful well written additions and significant discussions of problems, unlike others. Thomas Paine1776 14:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

detroit

The best thing I could up with is voting on the intro. Take a look.--Loodog 00:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Detroit article

I saw that you have read about my concerns about the article's FA and the potential of its removal. I have also noticed who is the primary user (in this case Thomas Paine1776) who is causing the problems that I had raised. I left a message with him explaining my position, but he seems to ignore it and again tries to espouse on the positives on Detroit while actively downplaying the city's negatives (which there are still a lot of today) in both the talk page and the article.

If this continues, I believe the only way to deal with him (I suspect he has already dug his heels in and is unwilling to take anyone else's opinion aside from his own) is through mediation or arbitration (something I don't want, but from the way things are going I don't see any other choice). Hence, could you or someone you know be able to suggest a course of action on this? And if it does come to mediation or arbitration to advise on the proper procedures? Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 13:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Geeze I wouldn't be a good mediator. But I agree with your assessment of the situation. TP1776 seems to really be a Detroit fan, and that's perfectly okay, most people like the topics they edit, but he doesn't seem to balance that with making neutral edits to articles. I would honestly think it's getting close to time for a user conduct RFC for POV pushing on the article. The problem is that no one really seems to be challenging him on the actual article, a lot of his changes just go unchallenged. Personally, as a non-Detroiter it's a bit intimidating to actually make serous content edits to that article, but I'm still guilty here for kind of just watching. Anyway... an RFC would (I think) help to establish a consensus that he's letting his fiercely pro-Detroit POV degrade the quality of the article, or something similar to that, and would be helpful in eventual mediation efforts to show it's pretty clear what he's been doing. You might warn him that an RFC is near, and I can help out with drafting it. Sorry for the slow reply by the way... I was exhausted yesterday. --W.marsh 14:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Detroit

I'm going to try to give a look. I imagine it will be difficult, given the intro. It has a "yes, but" structure, which underscores the boosterism you're talking about. It can be hard to deal with. No promises on time; I'll just try to wind my way through it. And don't worry—boosterism is a terrible problem on Toronto as well ;). Marskell 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice I've left two threads at the bottom of Detroit. You might want to go there to express your own concerns. Marskell 09:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

consistency between city articles

In light of recent problems with the Detroit article, I've made suggestions regarding consistency between city articles on the wikiproject cities page. I had a feeling this might interest you.--Loodog 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:2001 Space Odyssey.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2001 Space Odyssey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Providence, Rhode Island

Pentawing, I've noticed your contributions to the Providence, Rhode Island article. I've just nominated it for Featured Article status.--Loodog 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

FA page is here. Your feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated.--Loodog 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Detroit again

We're having an issue with people wanting to insert entire sections into the Detroit article about how much it has changed recently and how many new things are being built. Could use your help to help tone this down. Thanks.--Loodog 22:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Boston city seal.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Boston city seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Michigan State Capitol FAR

Michigan State Capitol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Epbr123 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Florida Atlantic University

I noticed you were one of the primary contributors to the University of Michigan article. I'm having Florida Atlantic University undergo a peer review before taking it to WP:FAC. Since you are familiar with the process I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the article? If so, please go here to offer any advice/suggestions.

Thanks, KnightLago 21:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

USS Abraham Licoln

I wanted to let you know that I agree with your removing the nicknames from the lincoln as unsourced, however, I wanted to let you know that although they were "unofficial" they were actual nicknames (and there are others as well). I just thought you might be interested in knowing--Kumioko 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

UM Fulbright and Rhodes Query

• Fulbrights: A quick search reveals the below relative to “routinely”

2006/7: UM leads Nation: http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6118

2005/6: UM leads Nation:http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Nov05/r111405c

2004/5: UM leads Midwest: http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Nov15_04/03.shtml

2003/4: UM leads nation: http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/print.php?Releases/2004/Jun04/r061104

1996: UM third in nation: http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1996/sep/09-17-96/news/news9.html

66.65.129.119 14:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Paste the list found at the below location into excel and see if you agree that the count is 25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Michigan_alumni#Rhodes_Scholars

66.65.129.119 15:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a response to 66.65.129.119 — What I meant concerning passages regarding the number of Rhodes Scholars and the fact that UM leads in Fulbright Scholars is that the sources in question must mention the facts explicitly rather than have the reader try to ascertain how the sources back up the assertion. This is due to the fact that nowadays, with every fact in Wikipedia being scrutinized, it is better to list an outside source (citing other Wikipedia articles to me is not very reliable. They can provide a general overview, but in terms of being an infallible resource this is not the case. Those articles can be edited by anyone, and who knows if someone else hadn't added something that is blatantly false yet so obscure that not many people will notice?).

From your response on the UM talk page, it appears that you believe that the information is correct and to leave it at that (since the listing also shows up in another Wikipedia article. For the Wikipedia article, see the above passage). Though you believe the information is correct, someone else might not believe so (I have seen this happen in other articles, including cities and politicians, which has led to edit wars and extensive arguments on the article's talk page). Furthermore, there has been a push for inline citations since the John Seigenthaler incident which placed Wikipedia in a negative light (I have seen incident on CNN). Furthermore, the UM article is featured, meaning it is one of the best that Wikipedia has to offer (in fact the UM article is the first university article to be featured). However, if you look at the FAR listings, inline citations happen to be a major concern and reason for many older featured articles are placed there with several actually losing their featured status (many of which don't have inline citations). Hence, my insistence on inline citations for passages that states a number or fact that can be disputed. Pentawing^Talk 15:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

hi

just saying hi. Haven't seen you editing michigan stuff for a very long time. __earth ^(Talk) 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ann-Arbor-City-Flag.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Ann-Arbor-City-Flag.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines men's basketball

I am writing you because you are one of the leaders in edit count at Michigan Wolverines. Do you understand the code for infobox jerseys and know the details of the Michigan color schemes? I have just started Michigan Wolverines men's basketball.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have made at least 25 edits to Chicago. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Category:Television stations in Dallas-Fort Worth

A tag has been placed on Category:Television stations in Dallas-Fort Worth requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Category:Television stations in Dallas-Fort Worth|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ViperSnake151 00:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)